TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (12) TMI 110
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld be completed, the assessee submitted a revised return on 25-11-1986 disclosing an income of Rs. 8,77,550. In part I of the revised return, the assessee had stated as under :---- " Revised return declaring higher income filed under Voluntary Disclosure/Amnesty Scheme vide Press Note of the CBDT and Circulars on this subject beginning with Circular No. 423, dated 26-6-1985. " The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessments), however, did not accept the amnesty character of the return and levied interest under section 139(8) at Rs. 1,41,716 and under section 217(1A) at Rs. 42,687 against the levy of interest, the matter was carried to the CIT (Appeals) who following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 160 ITR 961, held that the appeal against the levy of interest under sections 139(8) and 217 was maintainable. He also held that the revised return filed by the assessee-firm was under the Amnesty Scheme and, therefore, the IAC(Assessments) was not justified in charging interest under sections 139(8) and 217 of the Income-tax Act. He, therefore, vacated the levy of interest. 3. In ITA No. 813, the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y Scheme and, therefore, the CIT(Appeals) was not justified to delete the interest under sections 139(8) and 217 : 5. On the other hand, Sri A. Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the assessees, forcefully refuted the contention of the Revenue. He specifically drew our attention to the fact that in the Revenue's appeals, there is no ground as to whether the revised returns filed by the assessees were under the Amnesty Scheme. The CIT(Appeals) has discussed in detail that the revised returns were under the Amnesty Scheme and since the Revenue has taken no ground, it is clear that the Revenue has accepted the returns as under the Amnesty Scheme. Since the Revenue has accepted the returns as under the Amnesty Scheme, there is no question of charging interest under sections 139(8) and 217 of the Income-tax Act. The learned counsel has also drawn our attention to the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Jaikishan Gopikishan & Sons v. CIT [ 1989] 178 ITR 481, relevant at page 487. 6. The learned counsel also argues that the appeals against the levy of interest under sections 139(8) and 217 are maintainable in view of the decision of the Supreme Court relied on by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r sections 139(8) and 217. The assessees had filed revised returns only with a view to get away from the interest under the said sections. The additional income disclosed by the assessees in the revised returns is very paltry and, therefore, the intention of the assessees was to evade the interest. He, therefore, urges that the CIT (Appeals) should have maintained the levy of interest on the basis of the original returns filed by the assessees. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the assessees strongly opposes the contention of the learned departmental representative. He urges that once the returns have been accepted under the Amnesty Scheme, all the beneficial circulars issued by the CBDT should be applied and no interest under section 139(8) or section 217 should be charged. We, therefore, supports the decision of the CIT(Appeals). 10. We have heard the parties to the dispute, Government of India, by a notification, brought into being the Amnesty Scheme which was in operation at the relevant time when the assessees had filed the revised returns. The Amnesty Scheme was solely devised by Government to encourage the tax-payers to declare their concealed income and we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refore, had disclosed the additional income of Rs. 10,000 only. By showing the nominal additional income, the assessees, in our view, have made an attempt to evade the interest to the extent of Rs. 1,41,716 under section 139(8) and Rs. 42,687 under section 217(1A) in the first case and Rs. 24,624 under section 139(8) and Rs. 12,019 under section 217(1A) in the second case. In our view the Amnesty Scheme did not provide for this type of eventuality. The assessees have filed the returns originally and were liable to levy of interest on such original returns under the provisions of sections 139(8) and 217. The default was, therefore, committed at the time of filing the original returns. 12. The CIT(Appeals) has given relief to the assessees on the basis of Instruction No. 1720, dated 29-7-1986. We, however, feel that the CIT(Appeals) has not properly appreciated the intent and purpose of the said instruction. With a view to facilitate the decision, we reproduce the relevant part of the said instruction :--- " A doubt has arisen in some quarters on the point as to whether in cases of old assessees, a belated return filed for the first time under section 139(4) or in response to n....